JUDGMENT : G.R.SWAMINATHAN, J. 1. Heard the learned senior counsel on either side. 2.The first respondent herein approached the MSME Council, Madurai Region for resolving his monetary claim raised against the appellant by invoking Section 18 of the Micro, Small and Medium Enterprises Development Act, 2006. MSME Council issued summon to the appellant and conciliation proceedings were conducted on 31.01.2022, 28.02.2022, 15.03.2022, 29.04.2022, 13.06.2022 and 27.06.2022. The conciliation efforts failed. Thereafter, summon dated 06.07.2022 was issued to the appellant to appear on 26.07.2022. What took place in the facilitation council on that date has been captured in Paragraph No.8 of the award dated 26.07.2022. The said paragraph reads as follows:- “8.During the 6th Hearing on 26.07.2022 through Video Conference, the Petitioner was present and represented by Thiru.N.Athimuthan and the Respondent was present and represented by Counsel Thiru.PJ.Sri Ganesh. The Council has gone through the invoices and other relevant documents submitted by the Petitioner. Petitioner denied the contention of the Respondent that the work was abandoned midway. Third party 'Stem Infrastructure' was appointed in January 2021. The Petitioner stated that no timely payments were made by the Respondent and therefore left the project in July 2021 based on a mutual understanding and discussion with the Respondent. No Dues Certificate 16.08.2021 was issued by the Respondent to leave the project and is produced by the Petitioner. Final bill was raised on 02.08.2021. The Petitioner also stated that Respondent has claimed the payment from NHAI. Further, GST has been paid by the Petitioner and the Respondent has taken credit. All the relevant GST filing documents have been given to the Respondent. The Respondent disputed the pending payment and contended that final bill is only Rs.43 lakhs and that final bill is an accumulation of all bills and the pending payment is only Rs.5.09,330/- The Petitioner clarified that previous bills were kept pending by the Respondent including RA bills. Petitioner executed running bill which was to be paid within a month as per the P.O. Therefore, it is a portion of RA bill accumulated. Also, stated that the Respondent has admitted the liability of Rs.95 lakhs in their first counter dated 15.01.2022. Details of total bill value, amount paid, TDS deduction, have all been clarified and agreed upon by the Respondent in their first counter. Also, stated that the Respondent has admitted the liability of Rs.95 lakhs in their first counter dated 15.01.2022. Details of total bill value, amount paid, TDS deduction, have all been clarified and agreed upon by the Respondent in their first counter. The Council has gone through the 1 st counter and it is seen that the liability to the sum of Rs 95 lakhs is admitted by the Respondent. The invoice details are as follows: Serial No. Invoice No and Date Bill amount Rs. 1. 8 dt: 23.10.2020 85,26,902/- 2. 9 dt: 23.10.2020 87,351/- 3. 22 dt: 10.12.2020 92,58,605/- 4. 23 dt: 10.12.2020 11,74,708/- 5. 25 dt: 16.12.2020 1,16,950/- 6. 36 dt: 01.02.2021 26,03,375/- 7. 37 dt: 01.02.2021 3,58,188/- 8. 38 dt: 01.02.2021 84,715/- 9. 41 dt: 24.02.2021 8,230/- 10 42 dt: 02.03.2021 1,35,81,746/- 11. 43 dt:02.03.2021 35,091/- 12. 44 dt:02.03.2021 1,45,253/- 13. 45 dt:02.03.2021 5,54,902/- 14. 47 dt: 17.03.2021 37,06,808/- 15. 1 dt:01.04.2021 70,082/- 16. 2 dt:01.04.2021 1,53,119/- 17. 3 dt:01.04.2021 8,66,372/- 18. 4 dt:01.04.2021 17,83,135/- 19. 6 dt:01.04.2021 80,78,340/- 20. 7 dt:17.04.2021 21,93,193/- 21. 8 dt:03.05.2021 6,53,862/- 22. 9 dt. 03.05.2021 59,068/- 23. 10 dt: 03.05.2021 9,982/- 24. 11 dt: 03.05.2021 4,26,619/- 25. 12 dt. 03.05.2021 5,72,324/- 26. 16 dt: 02.07.2021 6,50,955/- 27. 17 dt: 02.07.2021 25,549/- 28. 18 dt: 02.07.2021 3,65,902/- 29. 21 dt: 02.08.2021 12,93,278/- 30. 22 dt: 02.08.2021 68,831/- 31. 23 dt: 02.08.2021 41,099/- 32. 24 dt: 02.08.2021 4,24,645/- 33. 25 dt: 02.08.2021 43,71,310/- TOTAL Amount Paid Balance Amount 6,23,40,489/- 5,23,65,665/- 99,74,824/- The claim of the Petitioner pertains only to the work order dated 17.08.2020. It is the case of the Respondent that as per the work order dated 30.12.2019, the Petitioner was required to lay paver blocks in 16.18 kms at the Madurai-Chettikulam fly over NHAI project and as per 17.08.2020 work order, the Petitioner was required to execute road widening works for 11.26 kms. The Respondent has contended in their counter that Petitioner could lay blocks only for 2.5 kms as against 16.18 kms and completed only 5.6 kms for road widening works as against 11.26 kms and left the project midway citing reasons of Respondent not providing work fronts for the Petitioner so as to effectively use their men and machinery. The Petitioner contended that after sending the RA bill and invoice dated 02.08.2021, the Respondent has rescheduled the payment structure on 15.01.2022 which is not acceptable. The Petitioner contended that after sending the RA bill and invoice dated 02.08.2021, the Respondent has rescheduled the payment structure on 15.01.2022 which is not acceptable. No statement was made by the Respondent against the billing or payment request of the Petitioner till 15.01 2022 and not sent any intimation or notice in connection to the deductions or complaints of defects raised by them till then. It is pertinent to note that the Respondent has stated in their 1 st counter dated 15.01.2022 that it was informed to the Petitioner at the time of awarding works that work fronts will be provided in a staggered manner. The Respondent cannot hold the Petitioner liable for breach of contractual obligations when they have not provided work fronts for the Petitioner to work on so as to fulfill their contractual obligations. Admittedly, third party contractor 'Stem Infrastructure' was engaged by the Respondent by issuance of work order on 21.01.2021 itself and the work order value is Rs.14,06,34,120/- It is clear that the third party was engaged by the Respondent majorly for other works even when the Petitioner was working on the project. The Respondent has not produced before the Council any email/letters pointing out lack of progress in the works executed by the Petitioner as claimed to have been sent by the Respondent to the Petitioner in their additional counter dated 30.05.2022. Apart from their additional counter, the only letter submitted by them before the Council is the 15.01.2022 counter wherein the Respondent had raised some issues. There is no proof of intimation sent by the Respondent to the Petitioner in connection to issues pertaining to billing or payment request, deductions or complaints of defects before 15.01.2022. No Dues Certificate was issued by the Respondent on 16.08.2021 to leave the project. Therefore, it can be concluded that the Petitioner left the project based on a mutual discussion and understanding with the Respondent and not abandoned the project as alleged by the Respondent. GST has been paid by the Petitioner and the Respondent has taken input credit. No Dues Certificate was issued by the Respondent on 16.08.2021 to leave the project. Therefore, it can be concluded that the Petitioner left the project based on a mutual discussion and understanding with the Respondent and not abandoned the project as alleged by the Respondent. GST has been paid by the Petitioner and the Respondent has taken input credit. Therefore, based on a detailed and critical examination of the claim made by the Petitioner along with available materials on record, the Council has come to the considered conclusion that the Respondent is liable to pay the pending amount of Rs.99,74.825/- (Rupees Ninety Nine Lakhs Seventy Four Thousand Eight Hundred and Twenty Five only) to the Petitioner, along with the compound interest with monthly rests, at three times of the Bank rate notified by the Reserve Bank of India in accordance with Sections 15 & 16 of the MSMED Act, 2006.” 3.The appellant was called upon to pay a sum of Rs.99,74,825/- with interest to the first respondent herein. Challenging the said award, the appellant filed W.P.(MD)No.26527 of 2022. The learned Single Judge vide order dated 02.03.2023 dismissed the writ petition. Aggrieved by the same, this writ appeal has been filed. 4.Even though the learned senior counsel on either side raised very many contentions, we are of the view that this writ appeal can be disposed of on a short ground. Section 18 (1 to 4) of MSME Act, 2006 reads as follows:- “18. Reference to Micro and small Enterprises Facilitation Council. (1) Notwithstanding anything contained in any other law for the time being in force, any party to a dispute may, with regard to any amount due under section 17, make a reference to the Micro and Small Enterprises Facilitation Council. (2) On receipt of a reference under sub-section (1), the Council shall either itself conduct conciliation in the matter or seek the assistance of any institution or centre providing alternate dispute resolution services by making a reference to such an institution or centre, for conducting conciliation and the provisions of sections 65 to 81 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 (26 of 1996) shall apply to such a dispute as if the conciliation was initiated under Part III of that Act. (3) Where the conciliation initiated under sub-section (2) is not successful and stands terminated without any settlement between the parties, the Council shall either itself take up the dispute for arbitration or refer it to any institution or centre providing alternate dispute resolution services for such arbitration and the provisions of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 (26 of 1996) shall then apply to the dispute as if the arbitration was in pursuance of an arbitration agreement referred to in sub-section(1) of section 7 of that Act. (4) Notwithstanding anything contained in any other law for the time being in force, the Micro and Small Enterprises Facilitation Council or the centre providing alternate dispute resolution services shall have jurisdiction to act as an Arbitrator or Conciliator under this section in a dispute between the supplier located within its jurisdiction and a buyer located anywhere in India.” 5. Section 18 (3) clearly states that if the conciliation efforts are not successful and stand terminated without settlement between the parties, the matter has to be taken up for arbitration. We carefully went through the summon issued to the appellant. No where does it state that the matter is taken up for arbitration by the Council itself. Chapter V of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 clearly states as to how arbitral proceedings have to be conducted. In this case, the said procedure has not at all been adopted. On this short ground, we are constrained to interfere. The order of the learned Single Judge as well as the award impugned in the writ petition are set aside. The matter is remitted to the file of the second respondent / Council. Both the parties shall appear before the second respondent on 07.07.2025 at 03.00 pm. The Council shall adhere to the procedure set out in Chapter V of Arbitration and Conciliation Act. We make it clear that the arbitration proceedings shall be concluded by the second respondent Council on merits and in accordance with law within a period of thirty days thereafter. We make it clear that we have not gone into the merits of the matter. The contentions of both parties are left open. 6.This writ appeal is allowed on these terms. No costs. Consequently, connected miscellaneous petition is closed.